Options:

(1) A witness is not necessary to protect Conscientious Objectors. It is a concession to those enforcing the Sexual Orientation Amendment, to add extra insurance that the exemption will not be taken lightly or frivolously, such as being passed around in bars.

(2) The statement explaining the theological basis is not necessary to protect Conscientious Objectors. It is added as a service to the Human Rights Commission in understanding the precise nature of theological resistance to "gay rights". Should the Human Rights Commission not desire this service, it should be left out. It also provides additional insurance that the exemption will be claimed only by those who actually have a theological basis for it. (Christians with a genuine conviction about it would have mixed feelings about filling it out: joy at the opportunity to share their convictions, mixed with suspicion whether some bureaucrat is going to judge the fine points of their theology! But any such suspicion point will be minimized by having the witness write the statement of theology rather than the applicant. Although the pastor's statement should summarize the applicant's belief, the applicant will know his belief is being presented by an acknowledged "expert" the way a lawyer provides a defendant an expert defense. And pastors are used to filling out forms.

(3) This draft leaves unspecified the question of whether this affidavit may be submitted after a cause of action has already begun, which would have the effect of canceling the cause of action. The implication is that it would. The Council may wish to clarify the procedure, or perhaps the Human Rights Commission should simply clarify it in their internal rules. Perhaps notice of this option should be provided with the initial service from the Human Rights Commission, with a deadline for utilizing it.

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. One who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war. Selective Training & Service Act of 1940, § 5(g), 50 U.S.C.A. App., § 305(g). U.S. v. Kauten, C.C.A. N.Y., 133 F.2d 703.

One conscientiously opposed on religious grounds to participation in war need not be a member of a religious sect whose creed forbids participation in war to be entitled to classification as a conscientious objector. U.S. v. Bowles, C.C.A.N.J., 131 F.2d 818. It is sufficient if he has a conscientious scruple against war in any form. U.S. ex rel. Phillips v. Downer, C.C.A.N.Y., 135 F.2d 521, 524, 525.

CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLE. A conscientious scruple against taking an oath, serving as a juror in a capital case, doing military duty, or the like, is an objection or repugnance growing out of the fact that the person believes the thing demanded of him to be morally wrong, his conscience being the sole guide to his decision; it is thus distinguished from an "objection on principle," which is dictated by the reason and judgment, rather than the moral sense, and may relate only to the propriety or expediency of the thing in question. People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 143.

Political Considerations

This solution is by no means offered only to make a point, to persuade Sexual Orientation Amendment supporters to see its folly and vote against the entire Amendment; it is a very practical, a very necessary solution, to the violation of Freedom of Religion that the Amendment as it now stands would cause.

But the effect of this clause may be to prove to the most conscientious, the most fair minded, of the Amendment's supporters, that its hard-core supporters have darker motives than they admit.

Perhaps they will prove me wrong, in which case I will happily confess my excessive cynicism and be content that the Sexual Orientation Amendment serves a true need, as here amended.

But my expectation is that hard core supporters will react to this amendment with a degree of outrage normally reserved for traitors, without being able to explain why their reaction seems so out of proportion to the relatively insignificant number of employers and landlords who would likely seek exemption under this amendment, as well as out of proportion to the justice served by this amendment for however many would legitimately use it.

I expect this because I observe that all the best jobs already are wide open to homosexuals; Principal, the Des Moines Police, City of Des Moines, Des Moines Public Schools, AT&T, Kirke Van Orsdel, etc, etc. And even most Bible believing Christian employers and landlords don't mind hiring homosexuals as long as they are not so open as to scandalize tenants, customers, and other employees. So what does that leave for the purpose of the Sexual Orientation Amendment?

Only one motive remains: to force that small remnant of Bible-believing Christians, with their obnoxious and "hateful" Scriptures like Leviticus 20:13, to bend the knee to their lifestyle!

If my theory is correct, (which I will happily abandon upon learning of another theory that accounts for these facts), then the hard core supporters of this amendment would see this Conscience Clause as allowing, to escape, the very Christians they want to drag into court! Yet they will not be able to publicly admit that is what troubles them, so they will react with emotion and off-point rhetoric.

Like the rhetoric they used June 4, 2001, when of all the examples they gave of discrimination, not one would have been affected by this Amendment! One high school girl feared "violence" from her father if she announced her proud Lesbianism during her Commencement speech! One lesbian teacher complained that students use homosexuality as the meat of their profanity! One man complained that he was insulted by workers outside an office where he was going to apply for a job, so he didn't apply for the job! How are these situations addressed by a law requiring employers and landlords to hire and rent to homosexuals?

If my theory is correct, then we may hope that when the Sexual Orientation Amendment's most conscientious, fair-minded supporters on the City Council see the over-reaction to this Conscience Clause, probably to the extent of insisting they would rather have no Amendment at all rather than one with a Conscience, that they will see the Sexual Orientation Amendment serves little economic purpose, but that its only real purpose is spiritual conquest. We may hope then that they will withdraw their support and let the entire Amendment die.

But if the Sexual Orientation Amendment passes, without this Conscience Clause, good-hearted, honest, loving people will have to choose between losing their businesses and property, or denying God.

Calls are needed to councilmembers. Some of them have difficulty understanding how Christians could WANT to "discriminate". They don't seem to understand it is a matter of obedience to Jesus. Nothing personal. A matter of not "enabling" a sinner, any more than any other sinner like an alcoholic, wife beater, rapist, or anybody else whose behavior ought not be "tolerated". Not that we are mean spirited, but "enabling" just isn't helpful.

They need to understand people care enough that they would feel forced to choose between obeying Jesus and obeying the Des Moines City Council. They would lay all their property on the line for it. Family businesses like mine, in the family for 80 years, would be sacrificed for this folly. (First offence: up to $50,000 fine. Second offense: $100,000.)

I can tell them this would be true of me, but they would say "it would only be true of Dave." I can't tell them if there is anyone else who cares that much, because I don't know. If you do care, please tell them! Please explain what Scriptures can possibly lead you, a loving Christian, to "want to discriminate"!

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)